Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sou Kamal Raju Jadhav, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune for the murder of her sister-in-law, Lata, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 500. The prosecution case was that on 16 July 1990, the appellant poured kerosene on Lata and set her on fire, causing burn injuries that led to her death. The appellant and the victim resided in the same house. The conviction was primarily based on two dying declarations made by the victim. The first dying declaration was recorded by a Special Executive Magistrate and did not name the appellant as the perpetrator. The second dying declaration was recorded by a police officer and named the appellant. The medical evidence indicated that the victim had 100% burns and was in a precarious condition. The appellant appealed against her conviction. The High Court of Bombay heard the appeal. The court examined the dying declarations and found significant inconsistencies. The first declaration did not implicate the appellant, while the second did. The court also noted that the victim's condition at the time of the second declaration was such that she may not have been in a fit state to make a statement. The court held that the dying declarations were unreliable and that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court acquitted the appellant, setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Dying Declaration - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on dying declarations - The appellant was convicted for murder of her sister-in-law based on two dying declarations. The court found that the dying declarations were inconsistent with each other and with medical evidence. The first declaration did not name the accused, while the second named her. The court held that such inconsistencies create doubt and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 32(1) - The court examined the principles governing dying declarations. It held that a dying declaration must be consistent and reliable. Though corroboration is not essential, the court must be satisfied that the declaration is truthful. In this case, the inconsistencies rendered the declarations unreliable. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 based on dying declarations is sustainable when the dying declarations are inconsistent and lack corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and reliable
- Corroboration of dying declaration is not essential but court must be satisfied of its truthfulness
- Inconsistencies in multiple dying declarations lead to acquittal
